Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson Reinstated by MLB

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by G1911

This legal crap is 100% irrelevant and a distraction - your written stance was not that Rose was not convicted or not guilty and thus it should be dismissed, your written stance was that grown men raping children is okay as a general principle of your political views as long as the child somehow "consents".

Claptrap! I said nothing about "child". That was you and some others. But that right there is the crux of the issue since you're wrong to say that Pete Rose raped anybody let alone a child. And yes, I am willing to accept the local jurisdiction's definition of age of consent.

Originally Posted by G1911

We've had death wishes and/or threats and pedo crap posted this week already now....

And worst of all we've had your virtue signaling which you can shove where the sun doesn't shine.

Originally Posted by G1911

...but you'd think there'd be some moral line people could have the common sense to believe in and abide by.

Be nice too if you occasionally showed some of that common sense of which you speak.

Originally Posted by G1911

Can't wait to see the next hot take of depravity, it's only Wednesday.

Actually it's Thursday. But since I'm guessing you're not going away, we'll get more "hot takes" from you for at least the rest of the week.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Claptrap! I said nothing about "child". That was you and some others. But that right there is the crux of the issue since you're wrong to say that Pete Rose raped anybody let alone a child.



And worst of all we've had your virtue signaling which you can shove where the sun doesn't shine.



Be nice too if you occasionally showed some of that common sense of which you speak.



Actually it's Thursday. But since I'm guessing you're not going away, we'll get more "hot takes" from you for at least the rest of the week.

Not even man enough to own it now?


Original post on it:

Originally Posted by bk400

I dunno, man. Maybe I'm a prude and a cultural philistine, but when you're a married 34 year old with kids and are accused of statutory rape -- and your best defense is (i) that the sex only started when the girl was 16 and (ii) the sex only occurred in a state where the age of consent happens to be 16 -- you're basically a douchebag. If they elect guys like this -- who were also banned for betting on baseball and convicted of tax evasion -- in the Hall of Fame, then they should also elect guys like Dale Murphy into the Hall.

To which you replied:

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Yes you are. Me I have no problem with other peoples' sexual mores so long as the consent element is present. As a Libertarian I'm a laissez-faire individual and not just on economic matters.

So what sexual mores involving Rose do you have "no problem with" as a part of your political outlook? The only one being discussed, which you leaped to defend, was Rose's history with 12-16 year old girls. You know damn well that was what was being discussed lol. At least have a better cover story when you finally realize the pedo shit is a bad look.


It's Wednesday here. There is a thing called timezones.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by G1911

Not even man enough to own it now?

You bet! No where in that post did I mention "child". I said people, and children aren't defined as "people" in every way - one of those being the age of consent. I explicitly said "consent" and you admitted that minors can't give consent:

Originally Posted by G1911

14 year old children can’t give meaningful consent.

Originally Posted by G1911

So what sexual mores involving Rose do you have "no problem with" as a part of your political outlook? The only one being discussed, which you leaped to defend, was Rose's history with 12-16 year old girls.

No. You're assuming I believe he's guilty of something or other with an underage girl. My only opinion ever in legal matters is that a person is innocent until and unless convicted in a court of law.

Originally Posted by G1911

You know damn well that was what was being discussed lol.

I do indeed. But you're the one who's willing to make the assumptions regarding Rose's doings and guilt. I'm not in this or any case willing to accept unproven allegations as proof of guilt.

Originally Posted by G1911

At least have a better cover story when you finally realize the pedo shit is a bad look.

Like I say, I'm too tough-minded to give a damn about "looks". Screw that. The logical principle is my sole concern.

Originally Posted by G1911

It's Wednesday here. There is a thing called timezones.

That too is strictly jurisdictional so I'll use my own.